October surprise

In American politicaljargon, an October surprise is a news event deliberately created or timed or sometimes occurring spontaneously to influence the outcome of an election, particularly one for the U.S. presidency. The reference to the month of October is because the date for national elections (as well as many state and local elections) is in early November. Therefore, events that take place in late October have greater potential to influence the decisions of prospective voters.

Since the 1972 presidential election (when it came into use), the term "October surprise" has been used preemptively during the campaign season by partisans of one side to discredit late-campaign news by the other side.

Walter Jenkins, a longtime top aide to Johnson, had a sex scandal was reported weeks before the 1964 presidential election, when Jenkins was arrested and charged with disorderly conduct with another man in a public restroom in Washington, D.C.'s YMCA ("so notorious a gathering place of homosexuals that the District police had long since staked it out with peepholes for surveillance"[1]). LBJ was largely saved by sudden events that pushed voters away from Goldwater and toward the stability hoped from continuity of government in a string of October surprises:

On October 14, 1964, the Presidium and the Central Committee accepted Khrushchev's "voluntary" request to retire from his offices for reasons of "advanced age and ill health." Brezhnev was now on the scene and there was a new Soviet government for the U.S. to be concerned about

"596", the People's Republic of China's first nuclear weapons test, detonated on October 16, 1964, at the Lop Nur test site.

Labour won the 1964 UK general election with a narrow majority of four seats, and Harold Wilson became Prime Minister, the youngest person to hold that office since Lord Rosebery 70 years earlier. The election was held on October 15, 1964, just over five years after the previous election, and 13 years after the Conservative Party had retaken power.

During the Vietnam War, the Republican challenger Richard Nixon anticipated announcement of a last-minute deal to end U.S. involvement in the Vietnam war by President Lyndon Johnson, which might earn incumbent Vice-President Hubert Humphrey enough votes to win election as President of the United States in the 1968 presidential election. Lyndon Johnson tried to salvage the election for his vice president, Hubert Humphrey, with a false claim of a peace breakthrough in the Vietnam talks a few days before the election. LBJ announced an enhanced bombing halt and more intensive talks in which the Viet Cong and the Saigon government would be "free to participate". After President Johnson announced a halt of the bombing of North Vietnam on October 30, 1968, Humphrey surged ahead of Nixon in some polls, where days before they had been in a dead heat.

Bryce Harlow, former Eisenhower White House staff member, claimed to have "a double agent working in the White House.... I kept Nixon informed." Harlow and Henry Kissinger (who was friendly with both campaigns and guaranteed a job in either a Humphrey or Nixon administration) separately predicted Johnson's "bombing halt": "The word is out that we are making an effort to throw the election to Humphrey. Nixon has been told of it," Democratic senator George Smathers informed Johnson. According to Robert Dallek, Kissinger's advice "rested not on special knowledge of decision making at the White House but on an astute analyst's insight into what was happening". William Bundy stated that Kissinger obtained "no useful inside information" from his trip to Paris, and "almost any experienced Hanoi watcher might have come to the same conclusion". While Kissinger may have "hinted that his advice was based on contacts with the Paris delegation", this sort of "self-promotion ... is at worst a minor and not uncommon practice, quite different from getting and reporting real secrets."[2] Nixon asked Anna Chennault to be his "channel to Mr. Thieu"; Chennault agreed and periodically reported to John Mitchell that Thieu had no intention of attending a peace conference. On November 2, Chennault informed the South Vietnamese ambassador: "I have just heard from my boss in Albuquerque who says his boss [Nixon] is going to win. And you tell your boss [Thieu] to hold on a while longer."[3] In response, Johnson ordered wire-tapping members of the Nixon campaign.[4] Dallek wrote that Nixon's efforts "probably made no difference" because Thieu was unwilling to attend the talks and there was little chance of an agreement being reached before the election; however, his use of information provided by Harlow and Kissinger was morally questionable, and Humphrey's decision not to make Nixon's actions public was "an uncommon act of political decency".[5]Conrad Black agreed that there is "no evidence" connecting Kissinger, who was "playing a fairly innocuous double game of self-promotion", with attempts to undermine the peace talks. Black further commented that "the Democrats were outraged at Nixon, but what Johnson was doing was equally questionable", and there is "no evidence" that Thieu "needed much prompting to discern which side he favored in the U.S. election".[6]

The term came into use shortly after the 1972 presidential election between Republican incumbent Richard Nixon and DemocratGeorge McGovern, when the United States was in the fourth year of negotiations to end the very long and domestically divisive Vietnam War. On October 26, 1972, twelve days before the election on November 7, the United States' chief negotiator, the presidential National Security AdvisorHenry Kissinger, appeared at a press conference held at the White House and announced, "We believe that peace is at hand."[7] Nixon, despite having vowed to end the unpopular war during his presidential election campaign four years earlier, had failed to cease hostilities but significantly reduced American involvement, especially ground forces. Nixon was nevertheless already widely considered to be assured of an easy reelection victory against McGovern, but Kissinger's "peace is at hand" declaration may have increased Nixon's already high standing with the electorate. In the event, Nixon outpolled McGovern in every state except Massachusetts and achieved a 20-point lead in the nationwide popular vote. Remaining U.S. ground forces were withdrawn in 1973, but U.S. military involvement in Vietnam continued until 1975.[8]

It was first written about in a Jack Anderson article in The Washington Post in the fall of 1980, in which he alleged that the Carter administration was preparing a major military operation in Iran for rescuing U.S. hostages in order to help him get reelected. Subsequent allegations surfaced against Reagan alleging that his team had impeded the hostage release to negate the potential boost to the Carter campaign.[11]

After the release of the hostages on January 20, 1981, minutes after Reagan's inauguration, some charged that the Reagan campaign had made a secret deal with the Iranian government whereby the Iranians would hold the hostages until after Reagan was elected and inaugurated.[10]

Gary Sick, member of the National Security council under Presidents Ford and Carter (before being relieved of his duties weeks into Reagan's term)[12] made the accusation in a New York Times editorial[13] in the run-up to the 1992 election. The initial bipartisan response from Congress was skeptical: House Democrats refused to authorize an inquiry, and Senate Republicans denied a $600,000 appropriation for a probe.

Eight former hostages also sent an open letter demanding an inquiry in 1991.[13] In subsequent Congressional testimony, Sick said that the popular media had distorted and misrepresented the accusers, reducing them to "gross generalizations" and "generic conspiracy theorists". Sick penned a book on the subject and sold the movie rights to it for a reported $300,000.[14] His sources and thesis were contested by a number of commentators on both sides of the aisle.[15][16]

Abolhassan Banisadr, the former President of Iran, has also stated "that the Reagan campaign struck a deal with Tehran to delay the release of the hostages in 1980", asserting that "by the month before the American Presidential election in November 1980, many in Iran's ruling circles were openly discussing the fact that a deal had been made between the Reagan campaign team and some Iranian religious leaders in which the hostages' release would be delayed until after the election so as to prevent President Carter's re-election."[17] He repeated the charge in "My Turn to Speak: Iran, the Revolution & Secret Deals with the U.S."[18]

Two separate congressional investigations looked into the charges, both concluding that there was no plan to seek to delay the hostages' release.[10] At least three books have argued the case.

In June 1992, Ronald Reagan's defense secretaryCaspar Weinberger was indictedTemplate:June 17, 1992 in the Iran–Contra affair.[19] Though he claims to have been opposed to the sale on principle, Weinberger participated in the transfer of United States TOW missiles to Iran, that were used to stop Saddam Hussein's massive tank army, and was later indicted on several felony charges of lying to the Iran-Contra independent counsel during its investigation. Republicans angrily accused Independent CounselLawrence E. Walsh of timing Weinberger's indictment to hurt George H. W. Bush's re-election chances. As Weinberger's trial approached, more concrete information on Bush's direct role emerged, including statements by Reagan Middle East specialist Howard Teicher that Bush knew of the arms deal in spring 1986 and an Israeli memo that made it clear that Bush was well versed in the deal by July 1986.[20][21] And in late October, Special Prosecutor Lawrence Walsh added to Caspar Weinberger's June indictment with another charge. It should not, however, have been a surprise to anyone, as Walsh indicated in early October that he'd levy another charge before the end of the month, and the charge of lying to Congress replaced a charge dismissed in a federal case the previous month. The Weinberger notes that Walsh released as justification for the charges were ones that directly refuted Bush's statements, but since Bush's claims of not knowing about the deals had been contradicted many times already, the information could hardly constitute a "surprise."[22][23] On Christmas Eve 1992, in the waning days of his presidency, Bush pardoned Weinberger, just days before his trial was scheduled to begin.

The notion that a Walsh "October surprise" impacted the election simply is not supported by polling. Ross Perot's re-entrance into the campaign on October 1 offered a polling opportunity that showed how great the obstacles already were to a second George H. W. Bush term. A CNN/USA Today poll that same day found great hostility to Perot's re-entering the race, but it also revealed 52% support for Bill Clinton versus 35% for Bush and 7% for Perot.[24] Polling October 8–11 had Clinton at 48%, Bush at 35%, and Perot at 8%. A poll from Oct. 22-24 showed Clinton at 44%, Bush at 34%, and Perot at 19%.[25] Steady attacks on Bill Clinton's "trustworthiness" over the Vietnam draft (Clinton got a prestigious Rhodes scholarship and avoided Vietnam service) had eroded his numbers to 40% by October 25, but Bush had failed to gain anything over that same period, still polling at 35% to Perot's 7%. Bush had just a 35% favorable rating on October 25, and that was an improvement over previous polling! Fully 77% of Americans rated the Bush economy as "bad or very bad." Only 15% of people polled thought that Bush had won the three debates, whereas 39% of people thought that Clinton had won the debates and 31% thought that Perot won. The poor economy in industrial areas of the Midwest also shifted states that had been in the Reagan-Bush column in previous elections to the Clinton-Gore column. Those shifts took place after the conventions but long before October.[24][24] By the time Walsh released Weinberger's notes in an indictment that had been months in the making, the likelihood of Bush beating Clinton was already small. Bush had polled consistently around 35%, with a high of 38% and a low of 31%.[25] To say that Bush lost because of Walsh's release of Weinberger's notes is nonsensical.

Days before the November 7 election, Thomas J. Connolly of Scarborough, Maine, a prominent defense attorney and 1998 Democratic candidate for governor, confirmed to a reporter that Republican presidential candidate George W. Bush had been arrested for drunk driving in that state in 1976. Bush confirmed the report in a press conference moments after it was revealed.[26]

On October 2, 2003, the Los Angeles Times released a story about Arnold Schwarzenegger and subsequent allegations that he was a womanizer guilty of multiple acts of sexual misconduct in past decades. The story was released just before the 2003 California recall (which was scheduled for October 7), prompting many pundits to charge that the timing of the story was aimed specifically at derailing the recall campaign.[27] It was not the only embarrassing story about Schwarzenegger to surface just days before the campaign: the next day, ABC News and The New York Times reported that in 1975 Schwarzenegger had praised Adolf Hitler during interviews for the film Pumping Iron, which was responsible for the bodybuilder-turned-actor's fame.[28] The twin controversies later led Los Angeles Times columnist Steve Lopez to coin the term "gropenfuhrer" to describe California's governor-elect;[29] a series of Doonesbury strips made the term famous.

On October 27, The New York Times reported the disappearance of huge cache of explosives from a warehouse in al Qa'qaa (see Missing explosives in Iraq). The John Kerry campaign blamed the Bush administration for this supposed mismanagement; administration officials charged that the Times had gotten the story wrong, and that the explosives had been cleared from the storage facility before the looting was supposed to have taken place.

On October 29, the Arabic news agency Al Jazeera aired a video of Osama bin Laden (see 2004 Osama bin Laden video).[9] In a speech that justifies and takes responsibility for the actions of September 11, bin Laden calls out the Bush administration and the American position in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. "Your security does not lie in the hands of Kerry, Bush, or al-Qaeda," bin Laden claimed; "Your security is in your own hands."[30] This is believed to have helped President Bush's campaign as it thrust the War on Terror back into the public eye. There is debate as to whether bin Laden was aware of the effect the video would have on the elections; the "Bush bounce" from the video did not surprise most outside observers of the 2004 election.

It has been claimed that Saudi Prince Bandar cut the price of oil (thus reducing gas prices) to help ensure a Bush victory.[31] According to a 60 Minutes broadcast, "Prince Bandar enjoys easy access to the Oval Office. His family and the Bush family are close. And Woodward told us that Bandar has promised the president that Saudi Arabia will lower oil prices in the months before the election to ensure the U.S. economy is strong on Election Day."[32]

The Mark Foley scandal, in which the congressman resigned over sexual computer messages he exchanged with underage congressional pages, broke on September 28, 2006, and dominated the news in early October. Bloomberg.com wrote, "The October surprise came early this election year...."[33] Allegations that both Republicans and Democrats had knowledge of Foley's actions months before the breaking of the story only fueled the speculation regarding the possibly politically motivated timing of the story's release.[34]

Two studies by The Lancet on mortality in Iraq before and after the 2003 invasion of Iraq have been described as October surprises for the 2004 and 2006 elections.[35]Les Roberts acknowledged that the 2004 study was timed to appear just before the presidential election,[36] though he denied that it was meant to favor one candidate over another.[citation needed] Although the studies used standard epidemiological methods, was peer reviewed and supported by a majority of statisticians and epidemiologists, political critics have dismissed the studies based on a variety of alleged shortcomings.[36]

News that the Saddam Hussein trial verdict would be rendered on November 5, 2006, just two days ahead of the U.S. midterm elections, led Tom Engelhardt of liberal magazine The Nation to dub it, on October 17, the "November Surprise".[37] In a White House Press gaggle on November 4, 2006, a reporter suggested that the timing of the verdict might be an attempt to influence the outcome of the November election, to which White House Press Secretary Tony Snow replied "Are you smoking rope?" Snow later told CNN's Late Edition, "The idea is preposterous, that somehow we've been scheming and plotting with the Iraqis".[38]

On September 17, left-leaning magazine Mother Jones published audio tape secretly recorded at a private Mitt Romney fund raiser wherein the candidate made disparaging remarks about the 47% of Americans who pay no federal income tax. While not occurring in October, some regarded the release as an "October Surprise" given its release relatively late in the election cycle and the fact that the original tape had been recorded in May. In subsequent writings, David Corn, the reporter who broke the story, explained that the timing of the release was because of negotiations between Mother Jones and the man who recorded the tape over precisely how to release it. Corn insists that the timing was not politically motivated.

On October 7, Wikileaks released emails and excerpts surrounding Hillary Clinton, including voice excerpts of speeches given by Clinton to a variety of banks revealing a stance on trade-deals different from those purported by Clinton during her campaign, along with her belief that it is beneficial to hold both public and private beliefs.[43]

On October 28, FBI Director James Comey announced in a letter to Congress that he would take "appropriate investigative steps" to review additional emails related to Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server. This was announced after newly discovered emails were found on a computer that was seized by the FBI, during an investigation of former congressman Anthony Weiner after being accused of sending explicit pictures to an underaged minor. The emails were found on a computer used by both Weiner and his ex-wife, top Clinton aide Huma Abedin, according to law enforcement officials. Several hours later, Hillary Clinton responded to the decision of the Director by calling on the FBI to be fully transparent and to release "full and complete facts" on what the emails contained. On October 30, it was reported that 650,000 emails on Weiner's computer were to be investigated, potentially being relevant to this particular and other cases.[48][49][50]

^ ab"John McCain and the October Surprise". The New York Observer. Archived from the original on October 12, 2008. Retrieved January 27, 2009. The term "October surprise" is most famously associated with the 1980 campaign, when Republicans spent the fall worrying that Jimmy Carter would engineer a last-minute deal to free the American hostages who had been held in Iran since the previous year. Carter and Ronald Reagan were locked in a close race, but an awful economy and flagging national confidence made the president supremely vulnerable.

^ abcdLewis, Neil A. (January 13, 1993). "House Inquiry Finds No Evidence of Deal On Hostages in 1980". The New York Times. Retrieved September 21, 2014. A bipartisan House panel has concluded that there is no merit to the persistent accusations that people associated with the 1980 Presidential campaign of Ronald Reagan struck a secret deal with Iran to delay the release of American hostages until after the election.